Because the evidence is so convincing. As I said in earlier posts, I would like to believe differently, and if evidence were presented to show me that there is a god or survival of the soul, spirit, intelligence or anything else other than mere matter after death I would be delighted to change my views.
But in the meantime, I can no more believe in god than I can believe that evolution doesn't happen or that gravity might not exist. It's not a case of just "not knowing" whether god exists. I have read extensively and all the scientific evidence convinces me that no intelligent powerful being is driving creation or remotely involved.
Apparently you don't find the evidence as compelling as I do. So be it.
"In science, 'fact' merely means 'verified to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' Of course, apples may start rising tomorrow but such a possibility doesn't merit equal time in physics classrooms." Stephen J. Gould
Why are you an atheist?
-
happyheathen
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:54 pm
- Location: Extreme bumfuck Nor Cal
- Contact:
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
...
and yet:no intelligent powerful being is driving creation or remotely involved.
what is your understanding of evolution? random mutation playing out in a field of survival of the fittest? or does the direction evolution travails give any indication that anI can no more believe in god than I can believe that evolution doesn't happen
your answer would depend greatly on your vista of evolutionary understanding, quite dependant on the perceptions you have been able to evolve...intelligent powerful being is driving creation or remotely involved.
you can only see from where you are standing, and only you can see from where your standing
instantiate vacuous truth
-
happyheathen
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:54 pm
- Location: Extreme bumfuck Nor Cal
- Contact:
[size=12][color=indigo]
Re: evolution, see below. Please note that while the author specifically addresses Christians, the arguments apply to most if not all theism:
Origin and Evolution of Life
First, the origin of life. Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is--let's say, a one in a billion chance--but on how often the game is played. In other words, if a billion people play, and the odds of winning are one in a billion, it is actually highly probable that someone will win the lottery. Now, if the game is played only once, and the only ticket sold just happens to be the winner, then you might get suspicious. And if the game was played a billion times, and each time only one ticket was sold and yet every single time that ticket happened to be the winner, then you would be quite certain someone was cheating. For nothing else could explain such a remarkable fact.
Therefore, the only way life could arise by accident (i.e. without God arranging it) is if there were countless more failed tries than actual successes. After all, if the lottery was played by a billion people and yet only one of them won, that would surely be a mere accident, not evidence of cheating. So the only way this lottery could be won by accident is if it was played countless times and only one ticket won. To carry the analogy over, the only way life could arise by accident is if the universe tried countless times and only very rarely succeeded. Lo and behold, we observe that is exactly what happened: the universe has been mixing chemicals for over twelve billion years in over a billion-trillion star systems. That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident--because life can only arise by accident in a universe as large and old as ours. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct.
Of course, we haven't yet proven any particular theory of life's origin true. But we do have evidence for every element of every theory now considered. Nothing about contemporary hypotheses of life's origin rests on any conjecture or assumption that has not been observed or demonstrated in some circumstance. For example, we know porous rocks that can provide a cell-like home were available near energy-rich, deep-sea volcanic vents. We know those vents harbor some of the most ancient life on the planet, indicating that life may well have begun there. And we know these vents would have provided all the necessary resources to produce an amino-acid-based life, and that they had hundreds of millions of years of time in which to do so. In a similar way, we have evidence supporting every other presently viable theory: we know homochiral amino acids can be mass-produced in a supernova and thus become a component of the early comets that bombarded the early Earth; we know that amino acids that chain along a common crystalline structure in clay will chain in a homochiral structure; we know simple self-replicating chains of amino acids exist that do not require any enzymes working in concert; and so on. So by the rules of sound procedure, the accidental theory is well-grounded in a way intelligent design theory is not. We have never observed or confirmed the existence of any sort of divine actions or powers that God would have needed to "create" the first life--nor have we demonstrated the existence of any such agent, not even indirectly (as we have for natural theories of life's origin). So the intelligent design theory is completely ad hoc, in exactly the way our accidental theory is not, and is therefore not presently credible.
The situation is even worse than that, really. For the Christian theory does not predict what we observe, while the natural theory does predict what we observe. After all, what need does an intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars each? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had to arise by natural accident. It would have no plausible purpose in the Christian God's plan. You cannot predict from "the Christian God created the world" that "the world" would be trillions of galaxies large and billions of years old before it finally stumbled on one rare occasion of life. But we can predict exactly that from "no God created this world." Therefore, the facts confirm atheism rather than theism. Obviously, a Christian can invent all manner of additional "ad hoc" theories to explain "why" his God would go to all the trouble of designing the universe to look exactly like we would expect it to look if God did not exist. But these "ad hoc" excuses are themselves pure concoctions of the imagination--until the Christian can prove these additional theories are true, from independent evidence, there is no reason to believe them, and hence no reason to believe the Christian theory.
The same analysis follows for evolution. The evidence that all present life evolved by a process of natural selection is strong and extensive. I won't make the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scientific consensus on this is vast and certain. And as it happens, evolution requires billions of years to get from the first accidental life to organisms as complex as us. God does not require this--nor does taking so long make much sense for God, unless he wanted to deliberately fabricate evidence against his existence by planting all the evidence for evolution--all the fossils, all the DNA correlations, the vast scales of time over which changes occurred, everything. Again, there is no credible reason to believe the Christian God would do this, and no actual evidence that he did. In contrast, the only way we could exist without God is if we live at the end of billions of years of meandering change over time. Lo and behold, that is exactly where we observe ourselves to be. Thus, atheism predicts the overall evidence for evolution, including the vast time involved and all the meandering progress of change in the fossil record, whereas Christian theism does not predict any of this--without adding all manner of undemonstrated ad hoc assumptions, assumptions the atheist theory does not require.
Even DNA confirms atheism over Christianity. The only way life could ever arise by accident and evolve by natural selection is if it was built from a chemical code that could be copied and that was subject to mutation. We know of no other natural, accidental way for any universe to just stumble upon any kind of life that could naturally evolve. Also, as best we know, the only chemicals that our present universe could accidentally assemble this way are amino acids. And it is highly improbable that an accidentally assembled code would employ any more than a handful of basic units in its fundamental structure. Lo and behold, we observe all of this to be the case. Exactly as required by the theory that there is no God, all life is built from a chemical code that copies itself and mutates naturally, this code is constructed from amino acids, and the most advanced DNA code only employs four different amino acids. The Christian theory predicts none of this. Atheism predicts all of it. There is no good reason God would need any of these things to create and sustain life. He could, and almost certainly would, use an infallible spiritual essence to accomplish the same ends--exactly as all Christians thought for nearly two thousand years.
Again, the only way a Christian can explain the actual facts is by pulling out of thin air some unproven "reason" why God would design life in exactly the way required by the theory that life wasn't designed by God--a way that was demonstrably inferior to what he could have done. Either God must have a deliberate intent to deceive, which no "good" or "loving" God who "wanted" us to know the truth would ever have, or God has some other motive that just "happens" to entail, by some truly incredible coincidence, doing exactly the same thing as deceiving us into thinking he doesn't exist, which at the same time just "happens" to require adding needless imperfections in our construction. In the one case, Christianity is refuted, and in the other it becomes too incredible to believe--unless the Christian can prove from actual evidence that this coincidental reason really does exist and really has guided God's actions in choosing how to design life and the universe it resides in. The possibility is not enough. You have to prove it. That has yet to happen.
We can find more examples from the nature of life. For example, a loving God would infuse his creation with models of moral goodness everywhere, in the very function and organization of nature. He would not create an animal kingdom that depended on wanton rape and murder to persist and thrive, nor would animals have to produce hundreds of offspring because almost all of them will die, most of them horribly. There would be no disease or other forms of suffering among animals at all. Yet all of these things must necessarily exist if there is no God. So once again, atheism predicts what we see. Christianity does not.
The Human Brain
As a more specific example, consider the size of the human brain. If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a fully functional mind can exist without a body--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them. For being minds like him, being "made in his image," our souls could do all the work, and control our thoughts and bodies directly. At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul. A brain no larger than that of a monkey would be sufficient, since a monkey can see, hear, smell, and do pretty much everything we can, and its tiny brain is apparently adequate to the task. And had God done that--had he given us real souls that actually perform all the tasks of consciousness (seeing, feeling, thinking)--that would indeed count as evidence for his existence, and against mere atheism.
In contrast, if a mind can only be produced by a comparably complex machine, then obviously there can be no God, and the human brain would have to be very large--large enough to contain and produce a complex machine like a mind. Lo and behold, the human brain is indeed large--so large that it kills many mothers during labor (without modern medicine, the rate of mortality varies around 10% per child). This huge brain also consumes a large amount of oxygen and other resources, and it is very delicate and easily damaged. Moreover, damage to the brain profoundly harms a human's ability to perceive and think. So our large brain is a considerable handicap, the cause of needless misery and death and pointless inefficiency--which is not anything a loving engineer would give us, nor anything a good or talented engineer with godlike resources would ever settle on.
But this enormous, problematic brain is necessarily the only way conscious beings can exist if there is no God nor any other supernatural powers in the universe. If we didn't need a brain, and thus did not have one, we would be many times more efficient. All that oxygen, energy, and other materials could be saved or diverted to other functions. We would also be far less vulnerable to fatal or debilitating injury, we would be immune to brain damage and defects that impair judgment or distort perception (like schizophrenia or retardation), and we wouldn't have killed one in every ten of our mothers before the rise of modern medicine. In short, the fact that we have such large, vulnerable brains is the only way we could exist if there is no God, but is quite improbable if there is a God who loves us and wants us to do well and have a fair chance in life. Once again, atheism predicts the universe we find ourselves in. The Christian theory does not.
Source: Richard Carrier, Why I am not a Christian.[/color][/size]
Re: evolution, see below. Please note that while the author specifically addresses Christians, the arguments apply to most if not all theism:
Origin and Evolution of Life
First, the origin of life. Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is--let's say, a one in a billion chance--but on how often the game is played. In other words, if a billion people play, and the odds of winning are one in a billion, it is actually highly probable that someone will win the lottery. Now, if the game is played only once, and the only ticket sold just happens to be the winner, then you might get suspicious. And if the game was played a billion times, and each time only one ticket was sold and yet every single time that ticket happened to be the winner, then you would be quite certain someone was cheating. For nothing else could explain such a remarkable fact.
Therefore, the only way life could arise by accident (i.e. without God arranging it) is if there were countless more failed tries than actual successes. After all, if the lottery was played by a billion people and yet only one of them won, that would surely be a mere accident, not evidence of cheating. So the only way this lottery could be won by accident is if it was played countless times and only one ticket won. To carry the analogy over, the only way life could arise by accident is if the universe tried countless times and only very rarely succeeded. Lo and behold, we observe that is exactly what happened: the universe has been mixing chemicals for over twelve billion years in over a billion-trillion star systems. That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident--because life can only arise by accident in a universe as large and old as ours. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct.
Of course, we haven't yet proven any particular theory of life's origin true. But we do have evidence for every element of every theory now considered. Nothing about contemporary hypotheses of life's origin rests on any conjecture or assumption that has not been observed or demonstrated in some circumstance. For example, we know porous rocks that can provide a cell-like home were available near energy-rich, deep-sea volcanic vents. We know those vents harbor some of the most ancient life on the planet, indicating that life may well have begun there. And we know these vents would have provided all the necessary resources to produce an amino-acid-based life, and that they had hundreds of millions of years of time in which to do so. In a similar way, we have evidence supporting every other presently viable theory: we know homochiral amino acids can be mass-produced in a supernova and thus become a component of the early comets that bombarded the early Earth; we know that amino acids that chain along a common crystalline structure in clay will chain in a homochiral structure; we know simple self-replicating chains of amino acids exist that do not require any enzymes working in concert; and so on. So by the rules of sound procedure, the accidental theory is well-grounded in a way intelligent design theory is not. We have never observed or confirmed the existence of any sort of divine actions or powers that God would have needed to "create" the first life--nor have we demonstrated the existence of any such agent, not even indirectly (as we have for natural theories of life's origin). So the intelligent design theory is completely ad hoc, in exactly the way our accidental theory is not, and is therefore not presently credible.
The situation is even worse than that, really. For the Christian theory does not predict what we observe, while the natural theory does predict what we observe. After all, what need does an intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars each? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had to arise by natural accident. It would have no plausible purpose in the Christian God's plan. You cannot predict from "the Christian God created the world" that "the world" would be trillions of galaxies large and billions of years old before it finally stumbled on one rare occasion of life. But we can predict exactly that from "no God created this world." Therefore, the facts confirm atheism rather than theism. Obviously, a Christian can invent all manner of additional "ad hoc" theories to explain "why" his God would go to all the trouble of designing the universe to look exactly like we would expect it to look if God did not exist. But these "ad hoc" excuses are themselves pure concoctions of the imagination--until the Christian can prove these additional theories are true, from independent evidence, there is no reason to believe them, and hence no reason to believe the Christian theory.
The same analysis follows for evolution. The evidence that all present life evolved by a process of natural selection is strong and extensive. I won't make the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scientific consensus on this is vast and certain. And as it happens, evolution requires billions of years to get from the first accidental life to organisms as complex as us. God does not require this--nor does taking so long make much sense for God, unless he wanted to deliberately fabricate evidence against his existence by planting all the evidence for evolution--all the fossils, all the DNA correlations, the vast scales of time over which changes occurred, everything. Again, there is no credible reason to believe the Christian God would do this, and no actual evidence that he did. In contrast, the only way we could exist without God is if we live at the end of billions of years of meandering change over time. Lo and behold, that is exactly where we observe ourselves to be. Thus, atheism predicts the overall evidence for evolution, including the vast time involved and all the meandering progress of change in the fossil record, whereas Christian theism does not predict any of this--without adding all manner of undemonstrated ad hoc assumptions, assumptions the atheist theory does not require.
Even DNA confirms atheism over Christianity. The only way life could ever arise by accident and evolve by natural selection is if it was built from a chemical code that could be copied and that was subject to mutation. We know of no other natural, accidental way for any universe to just stumble upon any kind of life that could naturally evolve. Also, as best we know, the only chemicals that our present universe could accidentally assemble this way are amino acids. And it is highly improbable that an accidentally assembled code would employ any more than a handful of basic units in its fundamental structure. Lo and behold, we observe all of this to be the case. Exactly as required by the theory that there is no God, all life is built from a chemical code that copies itself and mutates naturally, this code is constructed from amino acids, and the most advanced DNA code only employs four different amino acids. The Christian theory predicts none of this. Atheism predicts all of it. There is no good reason God would need any of these things to create and sustain life. He could, and almost certainly would, use an infallible spiritual essence to accomplish the same ends--exactly as all Christians thought for nearly two thousand years.
Again, the only way a Christian can explain the actual facts is by pulling out of thin air some unproven "reason" why God would design life in exactly the way required by the theory that life wasn't designed by God--a way that was demonstrably inferior to what he could have done. Either God must have a deliberate intent to deceive, which no "good" or "loving" God who "wanted" us to know the truth would ever have, or God has some other motive that just "happens" to entail, by some truly incredible coincidence, doing exactly the same thing as deceiving us into thinking he doesn't exist, which at the same time just "happens" to require adding needless imperfections in our construction. In the one case, Christianity is refuted, and in the other it becomes too incredible to believe--unless the Christian can prove from actual evidence that this coincidental reason really does exist and really has guided God's actions in choosing how to design life and the universe it resides in. The possibility is not enough. You have to prove it. That has yet to happen.
We can find more examples from the nature of life. For example, a loving God would infuse his creation with models of moral goodness everywhere, in the very function and organization of nature. He would not create an animal kingdom that depended on wanton rape and murder to persist and thrive, nor would animals have to produce hundreds of offspring because almost all of them will die, most of them horribly. There would be no disease or other forms of suffering among animals at all. Yet all of these things must necessarily exist if there is no God. So once again, atheism predicts what we see. Christianity does not.
The Human Brain
As a more specific example, consider the size of the human brain. If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a fully functional mind can exist without a body--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them. For being minds like him, being "made in his image," our souls could do all the work, and control our thoughts and bodies directly. At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul. A brain no larger than that of a monkey would be sufficient, since a monkey can see, hear, smell, and do pretty much everything we can, and its tiny brain is apparently adequate to the task. And had God done that--had he given us real souls that actually perform all the tasks of consciousness (seeing, feeling, thinking)--that would indeed count as evidence for his existence, and against mere atheism.
In contrast, if a mind can only be produced by a comparably complex machine, then obviously there can be no God, and the human brain would have to be very large--large enough to contain and produce a complex machine like a mind. Lo and behold, the human brain is indeed large--so large that it kills many mothers during labor (without modern medicine, the rate of mortality varies around 10% per child). This huge brain also consumes a large amount of oxygen and other resources, and it is very delicate and easily damaged. Moreover, damage to the brain profoundly harms a human's ability to perceive and think. So our large brain is a considerable handicap, the cause of needless misery and death and pointless inefficiency--which is not anything a loving engineer would give us, nor anything a good or talented engineer with godlike resources would ever settle on.
But this enormous, problematic brain is necessarily the only way conscious beings can exist if there is no God nor any other supernatural powers in the universe. If we didn't need a brain, and thus did not have one, we would be many times more efficient. All that oxygen, energy, and other materials could be saved or diverted to other functions. We would also be far less vulnerable to fatal or debilitating injury, we would be immune to brain damage and defects that impair judgment or distort perception (like schizophrenia or retardation), and we wouldn't have killed one in every ten of our mothers before the rise of modern medicine. In short, the fact that we have such large, vulnerable brains is the only way we could exist if there is no God, but is quite improbable if there is a God who loves us and wants us to do well and have a fair chance in life. Once again, atheism predicts the universe we find ourselves in. The Christian theory does not.
Source: Richard Carrier, Why I am not a Christian.[/color][/size]
-
happyheathen
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:54 pm
- Location: Extreme bumfuck Nor Cal
- Contact:
Gingher, guess what? It is free online! So I read some of it. I could not stomach much, frankly.
Wow. If that makes you feel good, well, enjoy. I just think people should realize they have only one life. Then you can decide for yourself how you'd like to spend it. It's nice to feel good about yourself and toward other people. No god is required, however.
I used to believe in reincarnation. But my problem was figuring out WHY god would need to create us as imperfect beings who had to go through many lifetimes to achieve perfection and be reunited with him/her/it. I mean, what does god get out of it? Is it just an intellectual exercise? something to while away the aeons? And then when we're all together again, then what? The other problem is that there's no credible evidence that anything survives the brain's death. I could go on in detail but I'm pretty sure that you've got your fingers in your mental ears and are saying "la la la" anyway, so I'll just skip it.
Wow. If that makes you feel good, well, enjoy. I just think people should realize they have only one life. Then you can decide for yourself how you'd like to spend it. It's nice to feel good about yourself and toward other people. No god is required, however.
I used to believe in reincarnation. But my problem was figuring out WHY god would need to create us as imperfect beings who had to go through many lifetimes to achieve perfection and be reunited with him/her/it. I mean, what does god get out of it? Is it just an intellectual exercise? something to while away the aeons? And then when we're all together again, then what? The other problem is that there's no credible evidence that anything survives the brain's death. I could go on in detail but I'm pretty sure that you've got your fingers in your mental ears and are saying "la la la" anyway, so I'll just skip it.
That's totally untrue Happy Heathen! I never ever have my fingers in my ears! What makes me happy is not believing in this or that as written by others, but what I am finding by my own experience. Not faith, not blind belief. I have had some concrete experiences that lead me to believe what I do, just as you have had yours that make you believe as you do. There are many paths up the same mountain. Every single person walks alone. I think our responsibility as humans is to respect and care for each other, no matter what we believe.
So create yourselves a most wonderful reality today all you humanists, athiests, christians, agnostics, hindus, buddists and self realizationists!
XXOO
Gingher
So create yourselves a most wonderful reality today all you humanists, athiests, christians, agnostics, hindus, buddists and self realizationists!
XXOO
Gingher
Yeeehaaaw!
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
individualistic evolution of the constituent parts to dynamise the evolution of the wholehappyheathen wrote:I used to believe in reincarnation. But my problem was figuring out WHY god would need to create us as imperfect beings who had to go through many lifetimes to achieve perfection and be reunited with him/her/it. I mean, what does god get out of it? Is it just an intellectual exercise? something to while away the aeons?
instantiate vacuous truth
-
Box Burner
- Posts: 5803
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:33 am
- Location: Kentucky
The answer is ... 42.
No, really. I read it in a book. If it is in a book it has to be true doesn't it? Oh. You say your book is true and mine is not? Hmmmm... How do you know? Well what if my book is true and yours is not? I see. My book is a work of fiction and yours is not. You're sure? So because my book is a work of fiction it is a lie. I see. Well... a lie can only exist if there is also a truth. So the truth substantiates the lie. Therefore the lie is truth.
So that means everything is true. So why worry about it?
The answer is still 42. Heh heh heh.
No, really. I read it in a book. If it is in a book it has to be true doesn't it? Oh. You say your book is true and mine is not? Hmmmm... How do you know? Well what if my book is true and yours is not? I see. My book is a work of fiction and yours is not. You're sure? So because my book is a work of fiction it is a lie. I see. Well... a lie can only exist if there is also a truth. So the truth substantiates the lie. Therefore the lie is truth.
So that means everything is true. So why worry about it?
The answer is still 42. Heh heh heh.
Dance in the heart of chaos. . . . .
ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Σωκράτης
.
ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Σωκράτης
.
Step in and opens window... Yep we will just have to use this thread for a prescribed burn no other way to clean it up.Sensei wrote:* opens door *
Jesus Christ! What's that smell in here? How do you guys stand it?
* slams door *
Starts pouring fuel on all the crap
Lights fussee
Hey a Fire elf can you make sure she keeps burning?
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"
[url=http://eplayabar.blogspot.com/]The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog[/url]
[url=http://eplayabar.blogspot.com/]The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog[/url]
-
Box Burner
- Posts: 5803
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:33 am
- Location: Kentucky
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
It is possible for part of the universe to believe in god, and for anotehr part of the universe to not believe in god.
If the universe truely is infinite [and I believe it is] then there is a space for all beliefs to be valid and true.
Only through self experience can one develop their own personal view of the universe.
However, this topic is probably getting old. So I recomend you take a break from breaking heads and watch this highly appropriate and funny video instead:
DANCE MONKEY DANCE [VIDEO]:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
If the universe truely is infinite [and I believe it is] then there is a space for all beliefs to be valid and true.
Only through self experience can one develop their own personal view of the universe.
However, this topic is probably getting old. So I recomend you take a break from breaking heads and watch this highly appropriate and funny video instead:
DANCE MONKEY DANCE [VIDEO]:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
Prove it.happyheathen wrote:But in the meantime, I can no more believe in god than I can believe that evolution doesn't happen or that gravity might not exist. It's not a case of just "not knowing" whether god exists. I have read extensively and all the scientific evidence convinces me that no intelligent powerful being is driving creation or remotely involved.
It's what you make it.
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
That is supposed to be the world's largest crayon.
I know it's a supersized image, but I was in a mischievious mindset when I posted it. I can scale it down in a little bit after the impact wears off.
I know it's a supersized image, but I was in a mischievious mindset when I posted it. I can scale it down in a little bit after the impact wears off.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
Rockhead already screwed the page up.Kinetic IV wrote:That is supposed to be the world's largest crayon.
I know it's a supersized image, but I was in a mischievious mindset when I posted it. I can scale it down in a little bit after the impact wears off.
Is there a way to prevent this in my settings? Mods, maybe you could talk to the admins about implementing a fix. PLEASE. I said please this time so everybody can just stay off my ass.
It's what you make it.
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
HM, you have 2 choices.HughMungus wrote:Rockhead already screwed the page up.Kinetic IV wrote:That is supposed to be the world's largest crayon.
I know it's a supersized image, but I was in a mischievious mindset when I posted it. I can scale it down in a little bit after the impact wears off.
Is there a way to prevent this in my settings? Mods, maybe you could talk to the admins about implementing a fix. PLEASE. I said please this time so everybody can just stay off my ass.
1: Complain to Spanky, not the mods or admins as only Spanky can implement technical changes to the eplaya.
2: Offer a prayer to St. Jude, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes because the chances of seeing this mod fall into that category.
2a: See ongoing discussion about how to address the Russian sock puppets as proof. How many months have we waited? And waited? And kept on waiting for the mods / patches to get installed?
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
spectabillis
- Posts: 3527
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
- Burning Since: 2022
- Location: black rock city
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
...
and who are you to be telling anyone to do anything?HughMungus wrote: Prove it.
instantiate vacuous truth
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
Re: ...
I'm the person asking someone to prove what it is they believe to be true. Duh.the fire elf wrote:and who are you to be telling anyone to do anything?HughMungus wrote: Prove it.
It's what you make it.
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
...
check the quote...questions involve question marks...HughMungus wrote:I'm the person asking someone to prove what it is they believe to be true. Duh.the fire elf wrote:and who are you to be telling anyone to do anything?HughMungus wrote: Prove it.
didn't you know that?
why the fuck should anyone waste energy jumping through hoops for your hard-headed self-righteous philosophical campaign to feel good about yourself?
(note the question mark)
instantiate vacuous truth
-
HughMungus
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
Re: ...
Who are you to characterize me?the fire elf wrote:check the quote...questions involve question marks...HughMungus wrote:I'm the person asking someone to prove what it is they believe to be true. Duh.the fire elf wrote: and who are you to be telling anyone to do anything?
didn't you know that?
why the fuck should anyone waste energy jumping through hoops for your hard-headed self-righteous philosophical campaign to feel good about yourself?
(note the question mark)
Someone said, "I can no more believe in god than I can believe that evolution doesn't happen or that gravity might not exist. It's not a case of just "not knowing" whether god exists. I have read extensively and all the scientific evidence convinces me that no intelligent powerful being is driving creation or remotely involved."
I said, "Prove it." I'm saying, "If you believe that 'no intelligent being is driving creation or remotely involved', prove it. If you can't prove it, why not be agnostic, instead?" It's the same argument I had with Rob. It points back to the original question: Why be an atheist if you can't prove there is no god; it seems the only position supported by evidence is agnosticism.
It's what you make it.
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
I think it's time for the world's biggest crayon to make another appearance.
Why?
Because it beats the current discussion which reminds me of a bunch of kids fighting on the playground instead of a rational discussion.
Why?
Because it beats the current discussion which reminds me of a bunch of kids fighting on the playground instead of a rational discussion.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
the fire elf
- Posts: 7300
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:43 pm
- Burning Since: 2002
- Location: nation
...
i never claimed to be rationalKinetic IV wrote:a bunch of kids fighting on the playground instead of a rational discussion
you set precedence when you characterized yourself as agnostic:HughMungus wrote:Who are you to characterize me?
HughMungus wrote:I've been referring to myself as agnostic for a long time.
your attacking someone's paradigms...and not in a very nice way...HughMungus wrote:I said, "Prove it." I'm saying, "If you believe that 'no intelligent being is driving creation or remotely involved', prove it. If you can't prove it, why not be agnostic, instead?" It's the same argument I had with Rob. It points back to the original question: Why be an atheist if you can't prove there is no god; it seems the only position supported by evidence is agnosticism.
let them be different...
different is beautiful
instantiate vacuous truth